AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe supreme court stated in its decision that in the case being the matter of dispute that the electricity distribution service provided by the defendant company has the nature of monopoly, thus the claimant has not any possibility to make any alternative electricity subscription contract without charging electricity lost-theft price, the stated price cannot be collected through provisions of secondarylegislations namely regulations, which are created by Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA), decisions of Assembly and communiqués of EMRA, based on general and abstract authority granted by the law, and it may be collected through a provision of law meeting the 73rd basis and procedures of the Constitution of Republic of Turkey; and concluded that collection of electricity lost-theft price from the claimant conflicts with the good faith rule regulated by the article 2 of Turkish Civil Code, article 25 of Turkish Code of Obligations and article 55/I-f of Turkish Commercial Code.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The supreme court stated in its decision that in the case being the matter of dispute that the electricity distribution service provided by the defendant company has the nature of monopoly, thus the claimant has not any possibility to make any alternative electricity subscription contract without charging electricity lost-theft price, the stated price cannot be collected through provisions of secondarylegislations namely regulations, which are created by Energy Market Regulatory Authority (EMRA), decisions of Assembly and communiqués of EMRA, based on general and abstract authority granted by the law, and it may be collected through a provision of law meeting the 73rd basis and procedures of the Constitution of Republic of Turkey; and concluded that collection of electricity lost-theft price from the claimant conflicts with the good faith rule regulated by the article 2 of Turkish Civil Code, article 25 of Turkish Code of Obligations and article 55/I-f of Turkish Commercial Code. The Court, which was of the opinion that the power balance which requires to be present in the freedom of contract has been disrupted in favor of one party and the contractual justice must be ensured through intervention to the freedom of contract when the articles 20 and 25 of Turkish Code of Obligations are taken into consideration against the fact that the service provided by the defendant has the nature of monopoly, was decided to accept the request of revision of decision made by the appealing party, and to reverse the decision of the Commercial Court of First Instance.
Özet
Yargıtay kararında, uyuşmazlık konusu olan olayda davalı şirketin sunduğu elektrik dağıtım hizmetinin tekel nitelikte olduğunu, bu nedenle davacının kayıp-kaçak bedelinin fatura edilmemesi yönünde alternatif bir elektrik abonelik sözleşmesini yapma imkânının bulunmadığını, belirtilen bedelin kanunun verdiği genel ve soyut yetkisine dayanarak EPDK tarafından ihdas edilen ikincil mevzuat, yani yönetmelik, EPDK Kurul kararları ve tebliğleri hükümleri ile alınamayacağını, yalnızca TC Anayasasının 73. esas ve ilkeleri karşılayan bir kanun hükmüyle alınabileceğini belirterek kayıp-kaçak bedelinin davacıdan tahsilinin TMK’nun md. 2, TBK’nun md. 25. ve TTK md. 55/If maddelerinde düzenlenen dürüstlük kurallarıyla bağdaşmadığı sonucuna varmıştır. Davalı tarafın verdiği hizmetin tekel niteliğinde olması karşısında TBK 20. ve 25. maddeleri de nazara alındığında, sözleşme özgürlüğünde bulunması gereken güç dengesinin bir taraf aleyhine bozulduğu, sözleşme özgürlüğüne müdahale ile sözleşme adaletinin sağlanması gerektiği kanısına varan mahkeme, temyiz talebinde bulunan tarafın karar düzeltme isteminin kabulüne, Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesinin kararının bozulmasına karar vermiştir.